Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

[blutoski]

There have been a few already, but I'm sure if you started one you'd spark some discussion.

In short, and on examination, I think you'll find that view rather untenable without resort to some rather torturous metaphysics, but let's save that for another thread. This particular position seems almost uniquely American (or at least, it is rather more prevalent amongst Americans than Europeans, as best I can tell), and really does underpin much of the bi-directional bewilderment that occurs in these types of discussions.


Rolfe provided summaries of the video up thread. I think you'll find them interesting rebuttals, as she inter-splices his claims (and his manner of presenting them) with her usual sharply-focused analyses. I think, yes, those are your only choices.

Well, it's not so much that he's foolish about what he proposes (true as that may be), more that he is foolish about what he opposes - he's tilting at windmills, really. In this particular discussion, he is ignoring the collective reality of six decades universal healthcare provision in every single western democracy on the planet. This isn't about fuzzy ideologies or utopias, it's about measurable, objective facts on the ground.

Does the world really need a counterbalance to reality?

The joke I heard about France in the 1960s: they'd say, "Yes, it worked very well in practice, but we cancelled that program because we felt it didn't work in theory." This appears to now be the majority American position on single-payer healthcare, and I'm not sure how they will get past this. Again, I suggest What's The Matter with Kansas as an introduction to the problem.

 

[Rolfe]

The joke I heard about France in the 1960s: they'd say, "Yes, it worked very well in practice, but we cancelled that program because we felt it didn't work in theory." This appears to now be the majority American position on single-payer healthcare, ....

That's just priceless!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

.... if soc-HC was better, our doctors would have insisted on a system like this by now. Why haven't they? If they do want this system, who has been stopping it from happening for this long and why? The Clintons prolly coulda got it passed, why didn't it happen then? People in America don't just draw conclusions out of thin air (for the most part), ....

[Note to self: stop being irritated by Dan's use of term "soc-HC", it's probably just a shorthand, even though it's annoying.]

Your doctors don't know any more than you do. In fact, your doctors have probably more reason to be distrustful of all this than you do. They're doing OK right now thank you. Someone proposes big complicated upheaval, about which they know little. It's human nature to distrust change that impacts so heavily on your life, and maybe not positively.

And for sure they're not going to initiate it. That is the government's job. At the time the NHS was started, the consultants had to be bribed to agree. They really weren't keen because they thought it might decrease their income. Even with successful examples now in front of them, it's still human nature to be suspicious of such a big change to your working life.

But even so, did somebody not link to a study saying 50% of US doctors now support universal healthcare in principle? And you saw these papers published by the American medical students. As international communication becomes freer (the Internet) doctors as well as everybody else are waking up to the fact that what they thought they knew isn't necessarily so, and maybe there is a better way of doing things.

Rolfe.

 

[blutoski]

I'm still finding the internal dialog I have with myself about this (because nobody else I know gives two craps about this kind of thing) leading to the assumption that if soc-HC was better, our doctors would have insisted on a system like this by now. Why haven't they? If they do want this system, who has been stopping it from happening for this long and why? The Clintons prolly coulda got it passed, why didn't it happen then? People in America don't just draw conclusions out of thin air (for the most part), so why have we been made to believe these things that are lies? It's a lot to take in for me.

My understanding is that the majority of MDs support UHC.

They can't "insist" because it's up to the voters and their representatives.

People in America don't just draw conclusions out of thin air. Among other things, they watch TV, and Stossel is right there 'informing' them.

As I said before: Americans are acting rationally, but on false premises.

I'm not sure why these fabrications seem plausible to educated, intelligent people, but they obviously do.

There's a fellow on another thread who [sincerely believed that Canadian incomes are capped at $250k]. He was told this by some guy, and he just seems to have accepted it without hesitation.

 

[Rolfe]

About the lying thing. Most people spreading the doom and gloom stories about universal healthcare probably aren't intentionally lying. They've just been told these things by other people (who again may not be intentionally lying), and never really questioned them. It just becomoes something that "everybody knows".

Also, the falsehoods chime with their desire to feel that their country is the best at everything, also that anything government run must by definition be bad. And as KellyB said, there's a lot of "OMG it's communism!" in there.

Once a comfortable fallacy like this is deeply seated, it takes an awful lot to shift it. People don't like having their minds changed. Kudos for sticking with it so far.

People in America don't just draw conclusions out of thin air. Among other things, they watch TV, and Stossel is right there 'informing' them.

And there's that too. People who want to believe "my boy Stossel" will do that. Only a minority of them will have enough critical thinking ability to start an internet thread asking others whether Stossel is actually telling it like it is.

Now if we knew why Stossel was doing it, we'd be better off. But maybe even he just has his mind so firmly made up that he doesn't think through what he's putting together and presenting.

Rolfe.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's worth noting that some American businesses themselves are pointing out that the current U.S. system is negatively affecting their ability to compete globally. This page at the Business Round Table web site talks about this aspect.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Your doctors don't know any more than you do. In fact, your doctors have probably more reason to be distrustful of all this than you do. They're doing OK right now thank you. Someone proposes big complicated upheaval, about which they know little. It's human nature to distrust change that impacts so heavily on your life, and maybe not positively.

And for sure they're not going to initiate it. That is the government's job. At the time the NHS was started, the consultants had to be bribed to agree. They really weren't keen because they thought it might decrease their income. Even with successful examples now in front of them, it's still human nature to be suspicious of such a big change to your working life.

But even so, did somebody not link to a study saying 50% of US doctors now support universal healthcare in principle? And you saw these papers published by the American medical students. As international communication becomes freer (the Internet) doctors as well as everybody else are waking up to the fact that what they thought they knew isn't necessarily so, and maybe there is a better way of doing things.

See, but I would imagine that doctors would be able to assess the situation and say "You know, those Brits really got it going on with the UHC" or " Boy those Swede's really know how to clean a hospital" and tried to adapt something like that by now. I mean, I didn't know very much about UHC, but I'm not a doctor, Jim.

I'm not sure if this is a good analogy or not, but if a chef has an inefficient and dirty kitchen, isn't it up to him to bring that to the attention of the restaurants owner before something bad happens. It seems like a failure on the part of our medical industry professionals is all. I'm not completely blaming them, but it's bad business.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, the surveys I've seen do suggest 50% of US doctors are in favour of universal healthcare. And in fact I don't believe you guys have too much to learn from the Swedes about clean hospitals so that may not arise.

But remember. Many people are looked after very well in America. So many doctors aren't seeing huge problems with the system at first hand. And doctors have secure lives and secure incomes at the moment. Suddenly rising up and demonstrating for a change that would destabilise that isn't necessarily their top priority.

We hear you guys insisting so often that your government is useless and will unndoubtedly make a complete mess of a universal healthcare system. I don't believe that. But it's a common US mindset. I don't imagine doctors are immune. So even if British doctors are well paid (as they are), they might well not be confident that they would be in the same boat once the "evil gubmint" had finished with them.

Established professionals can be extremely set in their ways. But I find the obvious pressure from the medical students interesting. The young people, still idealistic, not hidebound, and sufficiently far inside the system thet they can see the problems. They seem to be the ones with the vision.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This video reminded me of ya'll:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-228759

One thing about that video just shocked me rigid. Are you seriously telling me that all these businesses who are contributing to their employees' health insurance aren't getting tax relief on that expenditure?



That is just astounding. I don't know what to say. (I even think we get tax relief on that here, where there is universal healthcare.)

The other shocker is the comments. Though why I'm shocked I'm not sure.

again you think because people don't agree with you we are heartless...Have you stopped to think that some ou us are JUST TIRED OF PEOPLE ABUSING THE EXISTING SYSTEM??? Thats why it's broke thats why poor single mothers can't afford health care because we are to busy paying for all the ABUSERS!!!

It's deja vu all over again. And the lies about the NHS denying treatment to people for various reasons, and about how much universal healthcare costs, and so it goes on.

Rolfe.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The other shocker is the comments. Though why I'm shocked I'm not sure.

again you think because people don't agree with you we are heartless...Have you stopped to think that some ou us are JUST TIRED OF PEOPLE ABUSING THE EXISTING SYSTEM??? Thats why it's broke thats why poor single mothers can't afford health care because we are to busy paying for all the ABUSERS!!!

It's deja vu all over again. And the lies about the NHS denying treatment to people for various reasons, and about how much universal healthcare costs, and so it goes on.

Rolfe.

IMHO that's a reflection of the real world, populated by people with average intelligence, learning, and analytical/research skills. The JREF on the whole is much more intelligent and reasoned.

Even comments on stories on the CBC website, which I generally believe has more cultured audience than mainstream networks, make me boggle.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, that one was just so close to where Dan started from. And where I do worry he'll go back to any minute....

It seems to be a very common idea, that everything that's wrong is just down to freeloaders abusing the system. The idea that in a universal system all the people that commentator calls "ABUSERS" get treated anyway (it's just that they aren't "abusers" any more), and it's still all possible for about half of what the US is paying, doesn't seem to occur.

And they never think through the consequences of what they're saying. So Joe Bloggs has had a bad lifestyle and diet and smokes and drinks, and he's never held down a good job, and now he has diabetes and heart disease, and it's probably down to the lifestyle. He's an ABUSER!!! He's expecting handouts! When he didn't contribute!

So what? He can't afford the treatment he needs. No way. Are you going to let him die? Just like that?

Well, people need to be taught to stand up and look after themselves, People get lazy if everything is handed to them.

OK, but back to Joe there. You want to LET HIM DIE pour encourager les autres? And all those like him in the future? And their children who fall ill? Because no way never are you going to breed a race of perfect hardworking saints no matter how harshly you punish the wrongdoers.

This is civilisation? This is society in the most advanced superpower on the globe?

You'd think enough people would draw these guys a picture that this outlook might get a bit less pervasive, but apparently not.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Indeed one might argue that the low priority given to cosmetic work under the NHS in order to focus attention of "real" medical problems is in itself an unintended way of ensuring that the system isn't clogged up with "freeloaders" getting their noses fixed or whatever. Hell, if they want that tattoo removed then they can go private!

But, less toungue in cheek, the "abuser" and "freeloader" tag seems to me to point strongly to Libertarian principles. Child overweight, diabetic, needing medical attention because you didn't feed her properly? Why should "I" pay for it? Stuff you - I go to the gymn and eat fruit and everything!! Etc., etc. Personally I find it a socially irresponsible and reprehensible attitude.

 

[Darat]

Well, the surveys I've seen do suggest 50% of US doctors are in favour of universal healthcare. And in fact I don't believe you guys have too much to learn from the Swedes about clean hospitals so that may not arise.

...snip...

Wouldn't bet on that - very interesting article: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Path+...SA+infection+rates+have+health...-a0193141238

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

But, less toungue in cheek, the "abuser" and "freeloader" tag seems to me to point strongly to Libertarian principles. Child overweight, diabetic, needing medical attention because you didn't feed her properly? Why should "I" pay for it? Stuff you - I go to the gymn and eat fruit and everything!! Etc., etc. Personally I find it a socially irresponsible and reprehensible attitude.

Do you think a person should have a sense of responsibility to lighten the load as much as possible if they are participating in a system funded by others tax dollars? I just think that if you need entitlements, you should be required to buy things that are a part of a balanced diet. People getting fat on foodstamps is insane when middle class families are having to cut back on food they worked to buy.

 

[kellyb]

Do you think a person should have a sense of responsibility to lighten the load as much as possible if they are participating in a system funded by others tax dollars?

If they should, shouldn't they do the same if they're part of an private insurance-based risk/resource pool?

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

If they should, shouldn't they do the same if they're part of an private insurance-based risk/resource pool?

Of course, everyone would benefit from a good diet. I mean more like the people who are getting money for food and spending it on garbage. It's like this buddy of mine who got kicked out of his house for not paying rent and came to stay with me and my roommate for a while. The dude would not pay rent and he ate all of our groceries. It just seems like the right thing to do would be to help out as much as you can since people are sacrificing for you. This applies to countries with UHC systems too, and I think it's probably better left for another thread, eh?

 

[kellyb]

Well, yeah, it's always good to not be a selfisk jerk.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Well, yeah, it's always good to not be a selfisk jerk.

I know that before the "Lone Star Card" was used here and they relaxed the rules on foodstamps, they used to have a list of government approved products that you had to buy with foodstamps. These were foods off of the food pyramid and they were the foundation of a good diet (milk, cheese, bread, veggies, fruit, eggs.....mmmm, getting hungry), wonder what ever happened to that? Nothing like some good ole gov. cheese!

The point of all that is that I'm sure that this way was healthier and I'd assume more cost effective for everyone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know that before the "Lone Star Card" was used here and they relaxed the rules on foodstamps, they used to have a list of government approved products that you had to buy with foodstamps. These were foods off of the food pyramid and they were the foundation of a good diet (milk, cheese, bread, veggies, fruit, eggs.....mmmm, getting hungry), wonder what ever happened to that? Nothing like some good ole gov. cheese!

The point of all that is that I'm sure that this way was healthier and I'd assume more cost effective for everyone.

So you want to restrict others freedoms now? Freedom is the ability to make bad decisions as well as good after all.

 

[Architect]

Of course, everyone would benefit from a good diet. I mean more like the people who are getting money for food and spending it on garbage. It's like this buddy of mine who got kicked out of his house for not paying rent and came to stay with me and my roommate for a while. The dude would not pay rent and he ate all of our groceries. It just seems like the right thing to do would be to help out as much as you can since people are sacrificing for you. This applies to countries with UHC systems too, and I think it's probably better left for another thread, eh?

I'm sorry, but "it's their own fault" has to be one of the worst reasons I ever heard for not having UHC.

I can just imagine it....."I'm sorry you're lying bleeding in the road beside the remains of your mangled car, pal, but you were speeding and your tires and bald so you can just drop dead...oh, you have".